This is the third declaratory judgment action filed by Agio Corporation and East Atlanta Land Company, Inc. “petitioners”, against Gholamreza Tavakolian “G. T.”, and his brother, Hamid Tavakolian “H. T.”, claiming the right to redeem certain properties purchased by G. T. at a DeKalb County tax sale in 1997.1 After filing the first action in 2002, petitioners discovered that G. T., a Georgia resident, had transferred the properties to H. T., a California resident. Petitioners then filed a second declaratory judgment action against both Tavakolians. The trial court declared that petitioners had the right of redemption under OCGA § 48-4-40 and ordered the Tavakolians to execute deeds conveying the properties to petitioners as successors-in-interest to the original record title holders. We reversed the trial court’s judgment because service of process was not properly perfected upon either G. T. or H. T.2 Following our decision, petitioners filed a new declaratory judgment action on April 30, 2007, naming only G. T. as a defendant, as he appeared to be the only party who had any right, title, or interest in the properties at that time. According to the sheriff’s returns of service, G. T. could not be found, either because he was “evading” service, or the address he provided did not exist. Petitioners obtained an order for service by publication, and notice was duly published in the county legal organ once a week for four weeks, ending on August 2, 2007.3 G. T. did not file an answer or otherwise respond to the petition. On September 21, 2007, petitioners filed a motion for default judgment against G. T. G. T. never responded to the motion.
Petitioners discovered that, after the action was filed, G. T. transferred his interest in the properties to H. T., as he had in the 2002 action. H. T. was then added as a party respondent. A private process server effected service on H. T. in California on January 6, 2008, by leaving the complaint at H. T.’s home with his wife.4 Interrogatories, requests for admissions, and a notice to produce were served with the complaint. H. T. filed an answer on February 5, including an “answer to requests for interrogatories, admissions and notice to produce.” H. T. also filed a Uniform Superior Court Rule “USCR” 5.2 certificate indicating that he had served his discovery responses.5 On September 23, 2008, petitioners filed a USCR 5.2 certificate indicating that they had served the Tavakolians with another discovery request, including requests for admissions, on June 11, 2008.6
